AnnetteR wrote:I don't know why creationist have such a problem with evolution.

The same problems I had as an athiest actually.Lack of evidence being a major one.

mark

That comment was made in light of a comment made by Theodore: "Evolutionists, on the other hand, take the propaganda approach, and shut up anyone (or any evidence) that disagrees with them. I don't know why, if they truly believe their theory can stand up to an objective public scrutiny."

I was simply demonstrating that the argument goes both ways.

As an agnostic I don't feel a need to prove or disprove either. As an anthropologist I am prepared to correct information that is not accurate, which may support either evolution or relgious ideology.

In regards to your earlier post, there was an article in the news only a short time ago about another "early hominid" skeleton that was supposedly "the most important find since Lucy". You and some other anthropoligists may be willing to reject Lucy as evidence for evolution - and rightfully so - but most evolutionists still seem to think it's useful evidence. Obviously, the anthropologists aren't doing enough to correct things.

I don't know why creationist have such a problem with evolution. If they really have faith in their creator and believe in his teachings then it shouldn't matter what evolutionists think or say. Instead creationist act if they have to defend something that, by faith alone, shouldn't need defending. Creationist present distorted and inaccurate data to try and bolster their position. What does this say of their faith?

The problem is that evolutionists call their theory "science", and do everything they can to smear Creationists or anyone who brings up objections to their pet theory. Creationists just want an open discussion, evolutionists seem to think that any theory that supports religion is automatically taboo. Yes, your personal views may not depend on what the world thinks, but you are supposed to spread the good word and support the ideal of "truth".

And while both sides make mistakes (nobody's perfect), there's a point beyond which you switch from mistake to supression of evidence. As I said before, "scientists" have done such things as dislocate the jawbones on skeletons so they can be moved forward and inch or two and better express the authentic "ancient hominid" look, or in the case of pepper moths, bred them in captivity and planted them on trees so they could be photographed. That's not science, that's totally misrepresenting the available evidence.

Is it too much to ask to at least have the obvious lies removed from school textbooks?

Anthropologists are not responsible for settling an argument between two factions, and I'm not sure they don't have any say on what goes into secondary school books.

There are many lies and inaccurate accounts in textbooks and I'm not referring to the issue of evolution; that isn't the fault of anthropologist or evolutionists. Anthropologists are not in charge of deciding what children are taught in schools, nor, to my knowledge, do they write the textbooks. Textbooks might be written on a particular anthropologists findings and their books may be quoted but I think that is it.

Even in college textbooks are written by individual anthropologists, each from their own perspective and based on what they believe. The schools decide which books they will use for teaching purposes. If schools are using texts with lies then it's on the head of the school system, not the larger body of anthropologists or evolutionists. Also, teachers/professors are able to supplement with other materials and teach the material in a manner that suits the social beliefs of their region. This too is out of the hands of the anthropologist and evolutionists.

But who decides what is a lie and what isn't? Creationists? If you don't believe it then it's a lie? If you don't approve it's a lie? Lucy is considered part of the evolutionary chain, but much of what you stated before was inaccurate. Were those inaccuracies due evolutionists or did they originate with you?

Generalizations weaken your argument and make you less credible. Not all evolutionists think or act in the same manner. Evoltion is a science - "the observation, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." If all Creationist only wanted open discussion then you wouldn't make such negative generalizations and comments about Evolutionists.

"you are supposed to spread the good word and support the idea of truth"

What is the "truth" that all humans share? What "good word" are we to spread? How can one have open discussion when one side proffers only religious idea and insists that everything the other side says is a lie.

You find it so easy to accuse Evolutionists of wrong-doing and not having any evidence to support their ideas, without acknowledging that Creationists also lie and use bogus findings to support their ideas. What evidence is there to support the idea of creation? The Bible isn't evidence. The fact of our being isn't evidence. The Pope saying it's so isn't evidence? The supposed archaeological findings that have been presented are not evidence. There have been plenty of Creationists that have made false findings and lied in order to support their beliefs.

The fight is the same on both sides, right down to the dirty lying tricks used to support ones side. No side is free from "sin" - we are all human and we are all prone to the same human behaviors. A belief in God doesn't change human nature and it certainly doesn't make all those who believe in God act with more virtue.

You don't want open discussion. You want the idea of evolution abolished and supplanted with the teaching of creation. This will never happen. It is not the nature of our society. There are not enough creationist to spread enough lies about the evolutionary theory to ensure that it is buried and forgotten.

There is no conclusive scientific evidence for Creation. Obviously, nobody who was alive back then is still alive today, and even 6000 years is too long to be able to conclusively establish anything from the fossil record, historical writings, etc. That makes Creation a religious point of view, though you can say that archaeology has so far shown the Bible to be historically accurate, and that every culture on earth has some sort of Flood story. It's just impossible to scientifically prove the existence of God.

However, the same exact thing can be said about evolution. Nobody has ever observed macroevolution in action, and it has never been reproduced in the laboratory (millions of generations of fruit flies, not one beneficial mutation). It requires the same level of belief. Nobody's debating that variation (aka microevolution) occurs - it does - but microevolution has no actual connection to the theory of macroevolution. If it did, then you'd see sustainable mutations outside of specific environmental conditions, and you don't. Resistent bacteria lose their resistance when allowed to reproduce in a "safe" environment, because the resistant strains are weaker. The farther from the norm you breed a species of animal, the less fertile it gets. Etc.

Therefore, since both Creation and evolution are belief systems, you should either put both in the textbooks, or neither. I will admit that I wouldn't lose any sleep if evolution were omitted entirely, but given the current social conditions, you pretty much have to learn both if you want to have any sort of discussion on the subject of origins, and it's not like evolution is a threat if both theories are given an equal, unbiased summary in the textbook. I mean, have you ever calculated the chances of a protein forming by random chance, never mind the simplest one-celled organism? All the time in the universe would be a drop in the bucket, even assuming you had the proper conditions for formation through random chance (that's a whole other topic).

Bottom line though, the two points of view are mutually exclusive, and evolutionists currently control the schools and colleges. Since evolution is religion, it's not terribly interested in an unbiased, scientific review of alternative points of view, it just stomps them and moves on.

If you think it would be interesting, list a few of what you consider the most popular Creationist misconceptions of evolution and let's go from there.

The fact that the flood stories are widely shared doesn't mean that the flood occured as the Bible states, it only demonstrates that the writer of that particular chapter knew of the flood. Have you never read a work of fiction that mirrored reality? I have.

Creationism is a faith based belief. Evolution is a science. My money still suggests that I "trust" in a God that I don't acknowleldge and our country's pledge still claims that we live in "one nation under God" though a number of people don't agree. I'll do something about your issue with evolution just as soon as you clear up my issue. Deal?

Evolutionists do not control the education system. Christians in this country are the majority, it's statistically impossible for non-Christians or evolutionists to have a majority control over the education system or anything else for that matter.

I think you need to spend a wee bit more time reading Creationists sites. This thread is filled with inaccuracies, lies, and generalizations. Read your own posts and you'll find dozens of them. You want misconceptions; read a few legitimate Creationist sites. The good ones provide lists of points not to argue and why you shouldn't. There are also dozens of legitimate sites devoted to evolution that also provide lists of common misconceptions.

AnnetteR wrote:The fact that the flood stories are widely shared doesn't mean that the flood occured as the Bible states, it only demonstrates that the writer of that particular chapter knew of the flood. Have you never read a work of fiction that mirrored reality? I have.

Creationism is a faith based belief. Evolution is a science. My money still suggests that I "trust" in a God that I don't acknowleldge and our country's pledge still claims that we live in "one nation under God" though a number of people don't agree. I'll do something about your issue with evolution just as soon as you clear up my issue. Deal?

Evolutionists do not control the education system. Christians in this country are the majority, it's statistically impossible for non-Christians or evolutionists to have a majority control over the education system or anything else for that matter.

I think you need to spend a wee bit more time reading Creationists sites. This thread is filled with inaccuracies, lies, and generalizations. Read your own posts and you'll find dozens of them. You want misconceptions; read a few legitimate Creationist sites. The good ones provide lists of points not to argue and why you shouldn't. There are also dozens of legitimate sites devoted to evolution that also provide lists of common misconceptions.

I know that a certain minority has the vesto over school. Granted, that they're a bigger minority here than in most places but still...

When the Ten Commandments are removed from school, voluntary prayer during break time is banned, and you get sued just for bringing a Bible, then you obviously aren't the controlling majority. There are many private Christian institutions, but if there are any public institutions friendly to Christians, they're few and far between.

Oddly enough, the much-quoted "wall of separation between church and state" isn't even in the Constitution. It's from a letter by Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist association, reassuring them that there would be no official state religion to the exclusion of all other religions. The exact wording is as follows:

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." (emphasis mine)

In other words, it is still ok for individual states to pass laws on religion and moral issues, if they so wish, but the federal government is totally prohibited from making any laws for or against any specific religion or religion in general. You may also find the following quote of interest, again from Jefferson:

"Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion . . . ." (emphasis mine)

Jefferson really had it in for anyone who would try to dictate religion to others (especially Baptist ministers..), but it was not his intent to have religion purged from the schools.

Again, Amendment 1 of the Constitution says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (emphasis mine)

Now that we've gone through all that, I'd like to repeat my request that you list some Creationist inconsistencies. If there are really so many, you ought to be able to come up with a few just from memory, and a few minutes and Google should dig up even more. You can't really expect me to find them - after all, my point of view is that they just aren't there. It would be like asking you to come up with 20 reasons why evolution is a fraud and a crackpot.

And while you're at it, you can start explaining some of the odd things I've listed earlier in the thread, like fossilized trees and dinosaurs extending vertically through millions of years' worth of rock layers, and index fossils that seem to keep turning up alive. If you can't, then at least admit that those specific parts of evolutionary theory are bunk. A scientific theory that runs totally counter to the available evidence is supposed to be discarded, right? That's what makes science science, and not religion.

While I'm not well aware of the scientific reports on either one, I will voice a few small questions, that I, as a Christian and Creationist, cannot seem to get answers to. I'm involved in several other forums where these debates have gone on and I've the differing sides from fellow Creationist, Agnostics, Atheists and several other relgions.

But, first and foremost I have a question about the belief of Evolution that everything evolved from a common ancestor, and would like it answered by both parties. (First know that my questions and/or comments are not meant as arguementive comments)

If everything evolved from a common ancestor, over millions (or billions, whichever the case may be) of year, how then did the first ameobe (forgive me if that's spelled wrong), proteins, etc, first come into being? Because from what I have heard of evolution, the belief is that everything evolved from these, but no one is willing to explore the origins of these first life forms with me.

Something I've come to realize from both Creationist and Evolutionists, well really it's humans in general, we cannot fathom the world/universe never having a beginning nor an end. Christians say that God always has been. Atheists (and yes, I realize they are many Christians who believe in Evolution) say that we either just "were" (Big Bang Theory) or we evolved over eons from simple lifeforms. This is something I frankly find rather frustrating. Because the human mind cannot comprehend true eternity, we cannot reasonably explore either theory without subjectivism kicking, because we cannot debate that which we don't have a pretty solid theory on.

In our minds, eternity HAS an end and it HAD to have a beginning. That's a little off topic, sorry about that.

And I must disagree and say that Evolution and Creationism are both a faith based belief system. Because neither of us have proof of the beginnings (going back to my questions about the first life forms, if you will) we cannot prove that God did not set those first life forms into motion to evolve, nor that he ever/never existed at all, so we are at a stalemate in this game of intellectual chess.

I believe that humans/creatures have adapted, but I honestly see no evidene to prove that we evolved from one species to another (correct me if I'm wrong in believing that this was/is a thread of Evolutionary thought).

Take the horse for example, the hoof, yes, in my opinion, it may very well have had, what is it? Four toes or three? And could have been the size of a small dog. But I see it adapting to fit it's enviroment more than evolving.

So before anyone tears my head off (although I must say this thread has been very mature considering the topic), I will make one final statement, these questions were not asked to start a fight, I'm genuinly curios as to how both sides would explain this.

Thanks, horse_rider1990

It's the problem horses that have the most to teach us about not only riding, but about life.

I do strongly recommend for ALL involved in this thread to watch the Ben Stein movie, Expelled. No matter ow you feel about creation, ID or evolution, what is happening in the scientific world is absurd. These men and women only want to be able to keep researching down paths that previous evolutionary thought had led them to. When it leads them to a Intelligent Design possibility suddenly they can't be scientists anymore.

Back on to the question. According to one person on the video, organic life started from Crystals. How organic came from inorganic I'm not sure, and they don't tell you, but that is the theory that one evolutionist spoke of. I heard that the proteins form single celled organisms after lightening hit it.

Interestingly, Astrophysicists have found out that the very first thing that existed, the very beginning of the big bang, was get this......light. Just a thought. Read Gen 1:3.

Hmmm, that's curious. Your comment leads me to another random topic I've seen debated several times about how light or other nontangible objects are really the results of subatomic particles that we can control if we find out how to interact with the individual particles.

It's the problem horses that have the most to teach us about not only riding, but about life.